This verge article says calorie counting is bad science?

Losingthedamnweight

Sometimes I have to do a double take of what I read online. What do you guys think of this article?

http://www.theverge.com/2014/6/3/5763960/calorie-counting-leads-to-bad-science-and-worse-gadgets

maidentl

Two things jumped out at me. The first was the comment about neglecting to log late night calories. That's human user error, not any inherent flaw in counting calories. Then there was the final recommendation:

"You’re better off, argues Nestle, buying a scale to weigh yourself and judging whether to eat more or less by looking at whether you’re gaining or losing weight. It’s a breathtakingly basic approach, but until the technology to achieve true "scientific eating" matures, it’s the best option on the table."

You can still do that with counting calories. And I would argue, you should, otherwise how will you know if you're eating more or less?

I think we all know that this system is not perfectly accurate but it's really the best we've got at the moment. Throwing our hands in the air and hoping for the best isn't going to be better.

BigT555

yea i agree with the above user, they take a ton of human error as fault of counting calories in this article. and of course the founder of weight watchers is against it, he's losing money because people are getting smart enough to realize counting calories works.
it also focuses heavily on electronics used to assist counting calories, to which i agree that are just money grabs and are usually unnecessary and inaccurate

SKME2013

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/19/health/19brody.html?pagewanted=all&action=click&module=Search&region=searchResults&mabReward=relbias:r,["RI:7","RI:16"]&url=http://query.nytimes.com/search/sitesearch/?action=click&region=Masthead&pgtype=Homepage&module=SearchSubmit&contentCollection=Homepage&t=qry157#/calories%20weight%20loss&_r=0

The above might interest you as well?

This study shows that conventional wisdom — to eat everything in moderation, eat fewer calories and avoid fatty foods — isn’t the best approach,” Dr. Dariush Mozaffarian, a cardiologist and epidemiologist at the Harvard School of Public Health and lead author of the study, said in an interview. “What you eat makes quite a difference. Just counting calories won’t matter much unless you look at the kinds of calories you’re eating.”

So food choices do matter not only the amount of calories.
Stef.

BigT555

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/19/health/19brody.html?pagewanted=all&action=click&module=Search&region=searchResults&mabReward=relbias:r,["RI:7","RI:16"]&url=http://query.nytimes.com/search/sitesearch/?action=click&region=Masthead&pgtype=Homepage&module=SearchSubmit&contentCollection=Homepage&t=qry157#/calories%20weight%20loss&_r=0

The above might interest you as well?

This study shows that conventional wisdom — to eat everything in moderation, eat fewer calories and avoid fatty foods — isn’t the best approach,” Dr. Dariush Mozaffarian, a cardiologist and epidemiologist at the Harvard School of Public Health and lead author of the study, said in an interview. “What you eat makes quite a difference. Just counting calories won’t matter much unless you look at the kinds of calories you’re eating.”

So food choices do matter not only the amount of calories.
Stef.

i agree with this to an extent. what you eat does make a difference for general health for sure, but it also effects hormones in your body which may add up to losing or gaining more weight (however minuscule) then something that is considered a healthy food. that being said, if you eat less than tdee you are still going to lose weight no matter what (see the twinkie diet) and i still think counting calories is the best approach due to simplification. if you had to constantly worry about if the foods you eat are considered healthy along with the amount of said food and proper exercise,it would become overwhelming. thats why im sucha fan of calorie counting, it simplifies thing to the point of "eat what you will, but be weary of portions"

SezxyStef

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/19/health/19brody.html?pagewanted=all&action=click&module=Search&region=searchResults&mabReward=relbias:r,["RI:7","RI:16"]&url=http://query.nytimes.com/search/sitesearch/?action=click&region=Masthead&pgtype=Homepage&module=SearchSubmit&contentCollection=Homepage&t=qry157#/calories%20weight%20loss&_r=0

The above might interest you as well?

This study shows that conventional wisdom — to eat everything in moderation, eat fewer calories and avoid fatty foods — isn’t the best approach,” Dr. Dariush Mozaffarian, a cardiologist and epidemiologist at the Harvard School of Public Health and lead author of the study, said in an interview. “What you eat makes quite a difference. Just counting calories won’t matter much unless you look at the kinds of calories you’re eating.”

So food choices do matter not only the amount of calories.
Stef.

really you are gonna turn a discussion about calorie counting pros and cons into it's your food choices debate...so out.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

chivalryder

"Counting calories is bad. Just eat less!"

So how are you supposed to know if you're actually eating less if you're not counting calories? Different foods have different caloric densities.

Holly_Roman_Empire

Didn't rea the whole thing yet, but I saw the blurb "EVEN WEIGHT WATCHERS NOW ACCEPTS THAT CALORIE COUNTING'S A BAD IDEA."

Of course they think it's a bad idea. Calorie counting is free. Not really the best source to get expert opinions on the subject.

Edited to fix the quote from article.

earlnabby

i agree with this to an extent. what you eat does make a difference for general health for sure, but it also effects hormones in your body which may add up to losing or gaining more weight (however minuscule) then something that is considered a healthy food. that being said, if you eat less than tdee you are still going to lose weight no matter what (see the twinkie diet) and i still think counting calories is the best approach due to simplification. if you had to constantly worry about if the foods you eat are considered healthy along with the amount of said food and proper exercise,it would become overwhelming. thats why im sucha fan of calorie counting, it simplifies thing to the point of "eat what you will, but be weary of portions"

I agree with this. HOW MUCH you eat determines weight loss. WHAT you eat helps determine overall health and can, in a very small way, affect how your body uses the fuel you give it.

ekahnicole

Counting calories is what I have done for 420 days, I'd say it's worked rather well dont you think? Haha

You just cant bother listening to every "scientific" article about what's good or bad, over the last 30 years science has changed its mind 100 times about what food is bad for you and what isn't! I grew up being told that eggs were bad for you, a few weeks ago a lady at work was showing me this article talking about how fruit can "ruin your diet", because SHOCKINGLY - fruit actually has calories! So that's why my mentality has just been to try and eat better overall, some days I eat junk, some days I eat super healthy, but every day I am eating healthier than how I ate before I started.

Also a random note about late night calories - just log them as part of the next day, that way you are still accounting for them but you dont have to go back and change your diary for that day and its still possible to stay under your calorie goal for both days

Mav3rick54

"Counting calories is bad. Just eat less!"

So how are you supposed to know if you're actually eating less if you're not counting calories? Different foods have different caloric densities.

OH stop....now you are just being too logical. Where is the science in that?!?!

misstweedy

Actually the study does not support the claim that eating everything in moderation and eating fewer calories does not lead to weight loss because, as the original article in the New England Journal of Medicine states, "Total energy intake is not well estimated from dietary questionnaires, nor does it reflect energy balance, which is necessarily codetermined by energy expenditure. Thus, weight change is the best population metric of energy imbalance and at least partly captures energy intake after adjustment for determinants of expenditure (e.g., age, body-mass index, and physical activity)."

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1014296?query=TOC&#t=articleTop

stealthq

"Counting calories is bad. Just eat less!"

So how are you supposed to know if you're actually eating less if you're not counting calories? Different foods have different caloric densities.

Well, obviously you're supposed to eat the exact same foods every day, just less of them. I mean, duh! A varied diet is highly overrated, amirite?

Branstin

Counting calories will have to be done be it mentally, manually, or through some program like Weight Watchers, Jenny Craig, South Beach, NutriSytem, etc. Someone, somewhere will have to count the calories so how could counting calories be bad?

Jruzer

It's an interesting article where it brings up the limitations of calorie counting. But it steals a base when it recommends against it. Just because the tool is imperfect doesn't mean it's useless.

As others say, how do you know when you're "eating less" if you're not measuring in some way? That was always my difficulty before I started counting.

Francl27

As everyone said... Most people have no idea what they'd have to do to eat less, because they don't realize how much they are eating in the first place. I mean there's the basic stuff like not having seconds, skipping a snack, not eating the whole box of cookies... but how do you know it's enough if you're not counting calories? Because I can tell you that when I was big, doing that would have not helped me lose weight... maintain, perhaps, but that's about it.

nilbogger

Right. I'll keep with calorie counting until someone gives me a concrete idea of what I should do instead. Just "eating less" isn't going to cut it.

DrJenO

I've said it in a different thread, and I'll say it again here:

It doesn't matter whether you count calories or not; your BODY is certainly keeping up with what you eat and puts on or loses weight accordingly. So I figure I might as well count calories, to make sure I get the results I want.

WalkingAlong

Interesting article. I think Nestle means that trying to micromanage your levels of calorie intake and burn (like with a Fitbit or this site) is problematic and it's more important to look at the result than the absolute numbers. E.g., if your Fitbit says 2000 burned and your logging says 1700 taken in and you've been maintaining, forget the levels themselves because they're such rough estimates and realize that you are taking in what you burn and either eat less or move more, regardless of what your math tells you.

bcattoes

The article is mostly about all those gadgets that claim to know how many caloires you should eat or are eating. And yeah, a lot of those gadgets it mentions are pretty bad science. The margin of error on some is pretty ridiculous.

But even in regards to calorie counting I think the article has some valid points. They are correct that it's not totally accurate, even if the user is 100% diligent about entering what they eat/drink. 100g of golden delicious apple is not always going to contain same calories. Nor is 100g of t-bone beef steak, or 100g of brown rice or 100g of most other foods. So yeah, calorie counting is not an exact science. Surely most people already knew that.

As for the human factor and the tendancy to log incorrectly. Well, you only have to spend a little time on the forums to know that is true. But that doesn't make it bad science. That just means it's not the right tool for those that aren't willing to use it correctly.

cheripugh1

I have to say I know a couple of non-related people (total strangers and age differences) who keep very fit, and the MAIN way is the scale they get on every morning and it dictates their diet. #1. if she gains 2 lbs. she cuts back on how much she eats that day. #2. if she gains 5 lbs. at the end of the week she goes on a very strict diet for a week or until it is gone again. Neither lady waits until they have a person to lose, neither have bad health... and one is about 70 now and has done it all her adult life.

So maybe there is something to this scale and how much you eat? so you say well how do I know if I don't count the calories... HELLO look at it, surely you know by the time you are fit or close to it about how bad or good a meal is for you. Until you get fit or nearly there I think you need to count calories so you can learn about those things and learn to control your portions.

So I don't know I guess we need both ways... or like with all these diets out there and fitness gurus they do all work for some people, I guess find what works for you and just do it!

cwolfman13

Before I counted calories, I had no idea how much I was eating...I actually thought I didn't really eat that much and relative to most people I knew, I ate pretty "healthy" with lots of home cooking, etc. Calorie counting opened my eyes to how much I was actually eating...not only that, I was surprised to see that my choices were resulting in a less than balanced diet to be sure.

Calorie counting does have it's limitations and it's not the be all and end all...but it's a pretty useful tool that aided me greatly in dropping 40 Lbs and helped me to have a more balanced and nutritious diet. I wouldn't exactly say that is "bad".

I don't log anymore and I've been able to maintain for over a year now with the knowledge that I gained while I was logging...for me, that was the benefit. It's not the be all and end all...and contrary to the thoughts of many on MFP, counting calories really isn't (or shouldn't) be the "lifestyle" they are seeking...IMHO, people who think so are really missing the boat and failing to see the bigger picture of what lifestyle change really means.

As with anything, it has it's flaws but it's not worthless and it does work well for most people. The article itself brings up a lot of inherent user error...which isn't a flaw of calorie counting in and of itself...those are human flaws, many of which I was cognizant of when I was logging and made my best efforts to avoid.

feliscatus84

Isn't Weight Watchers counting calories though? They just have that fancy calculator that turns calories into "points". I know they do the veggies/fruits are no calories plan but every thing else is based off of calories. Unless I'm missing something.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

jofjltncb6

I think I'll continue tracking calories on both sides of the equation to move my weight and body composition to where I want it with precision as I have for several years now.

bcattoes

As others say, how do you know when you're "eating less" if you're not measuring in some way? That was always my difficulty before I started counting.

When you lose weight or get smaller. I'm not saying calorie counting is not a good idea, but a lot of people do lose weight without it.

_KitKat_

When I read the article, all I saw was human error, mentally not prepared to track, and assuming the numbers are exact.

Calorie counting is a tool. Lying to ones self and logging falsely is a persons issue not the tools. The study they quote about 30% user over estimations.... I have read before, it is up to 30%, and was a questionnaire. In that study the main issue was portion size distortion.... This is why we need to weigh our food.

Most here know all our numbers are just estimates and it takes trial and error. A perfect MFP example of accuracy catching up to the user is.....when someone claims to eat 1200, loses weight, then stalls.....it worked for a while because the margin of error was large. When it shrinks, then accuracy and realizing they were really eating 1700 or more calories a day becomes necessary to continue on.

Saying a method doesn't work because users have issues is just asinine. It is free, and works. I do agree with the articles statement on weighing, the problem is they state it as the end all....when really it is a tool to use with calorie counting to get the estimated numbers as precise as possible.

To me it also sounded like hand holding....its OK that calorie counting didn't work for you! Most everybody would lie when they log, refuse to measure/weigh foods, and not be able to stick to a plan or try to educate themselves about the pros/cons to the system.

I log every bite, but I also know that in the larger picture my numbers are not exact enough for that bite to probably sway the margin of error. I log it though because the mentality that one bite means nothing is what got me here, they add up....especially oreos

hmaddpear

The article is mostly about all those gadgets that claim to know how many caloires you should eat or are eating. And yeah, a lot of those gadgets it mentions are pretty bad science. The margin of error on some is pretty ridiculous.

But even in regards to calorie counting I think the article has some valid points. They are correct that it's not totally accurate, even if the user is 100% diligent about entering what they eat/drink. 100g of golden delicious apple is not always going to contain same calories. Nor is 100g of t-bone beef steak, or 100g of brown rice or 100g of most other foods. So yeah, calorie counting is not an exact science. Surely most people already knew that.

As for the human factor and the tendancy to log incorrectly. Well, you only have to spend a little time on the forums to know that is true. But that doesn't make it bad science. That just means it's not the right tool for those that aren't willing to use it correctly.

This is what I came in to say - but said better. Thanks!

It's definitely more an article on the futility of the new gadgets, rather than the basic premise we all know and love. (!) Trying to draw the conclusion that calorie counting is therefore bad science is rather silly.

Of course, pen and paper is going to have its drawbacks - human error, available energy differences (the calories counted in a product are not, necessarily the calories that everyone is going to utilise, due to metabolism and digestion differences), calorie burn estimates, etc. etc. etc. But we know that, don't we? All the great guides we've got on this site state: Start with this basic premise, and then tweak up and down until it suits you, the individual.

Isn't Weight Watchers counting calories though? They just have that fancy calculator that turns calories into "points". I know they do the veggies/fruits are no calories plan but every thing else is based off of calories.

Yes, although there's also some judgemental bias going on. For the same calorific value an item of food with high fat will have automatically higher points than one with high amounts of simple carbs.

lemurcat12

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/19/health/19brody.html?pagewanted=all&action=click&module=Search&region=searchResults&mabReward=relbias:r,["RI:7","RI:16"]&url=http://query.nytimes.com/search/sitesearch/?action=click&region=Masthead&pgtype=Homepage&module=SearchSubmit&contentCollection=Homepage&t=qry157#/calories%20weight%20loss&_r=0

The above might interest you as well?

This study shows that conventional wisdom — to eat everything in moderation, eat fewer calories and avoid fatty foods — isn’t the best approach,” Dr. Dariush Mozaffarian, a cardiologist and epidemiologist at the Harvard School of Public Health and lead author of the study, said in an interview. “What you eat makes quite a difference. Just counting calories won’t matter much unless you look at the kinds of calories you’re eating.”

So food choices do matter not only the amount of calories.
Stef.

i agree with this to an extent. what you eat does make a difference for general health for sure, but it also effects hormones in your body which may add up to losing or gaining more weight (however minuscule) then something that is considered a healthy food. that being said, if you eat less than tdee you are still going to lose weight no matter what (see the twinkie diet) and i still think counting calories is the best approach due to simplification. if you had to constantly worry about if the foods you eat are considered healthy along with the amount of said food and proper exercise,it would become overwhelming. thats why im sucha fan of calorie counting, it simplifies thing to the point of "eat what you will, but be weary of portions"

Beyond this, which makes sense to me, the article does not actually suggest that what you eat vs. how much you eat affects weight loss. It suggests that eating certain foods (more vegetables, for example) correlates with being at a lower weight and eating other foods (lots of fries, for example) correlates with being at a higher weight. I suspect this is not surprising to anyone and it hardly supports a claim that calories don't matter.

Instead, although correlations can have all kind of reasons other than causation, there is a generally plausible causal explanation that I can see (far more plausible than the idea that "healthy" food can't make you fat or the weirdly superstitious idea that fries are essentially a fat pill, and will prevent weight loss even if you are under maintenance). Specifically, these are people who aren't calorie counting, for the most part, and people in the habit of filling up on balanced meals, including lots of vegetables, will probably eat less other stuff. People who eat lots of fries may be snacking a lot or eating out or unbalanced meals a lot. That kind of thing.

WalkingAlong

As others say, how do you know when you're "eating less" if you're not measuring in some way? That was always my difficulty before I started counting.

When you lose weight or get smaller. I'm not saying calorie counting is not a good idea, but a lot of people do lose weight without it.

Or also when you're less satiated, or just feel like you're eating less volume overall without compensating by eating more calorie dense foods.